Undergraduate Senate doubles down on opposition to Honor Code revision proposal, citing breach of precedent and scholar belief

At its Tuesday assembly, the Undergraduate Senate (UGS) expressed disapproval of a movement handed by the School Senate final Thursday to unilaterally revise the Honor Code and explicitly allow examination proctoring within the upcoming college yr. Senators additionally mentioned that they may meet with directors later this week to debate the Senate’s movement.

The movement handed by the School Senate final Thursday asserts that the Senate has the only authority to provide instructors “the best to have interaction in affordable proctoring of in-person exams” and explicitly permits proctoring within the 2023-24 educational yr. The Senate’s vote sidestepped the UGS’s choice to twice reject the Committee of 12’s (C12) really useful Honor Code language and Educational Integrity Working Group (AIWG) research into proctoring. 

The School Senate’s vote — dubbed the “nuclear choice” by Vice Provost of Undergraduate Training Sarah Church and others — sidestepped 102 years of precedent on “shared governance” between school and college students on issues of educational integrity. UGS co-chair Amira Dehmani ’24 introduced that she, together with fellow co-chair Aden Beyene ’24 and Related College students of Stanford College (ASSU) Government President Darryl Thompson ’23, will meet with Church and members of the School Senate Thursday to debate the movement handed by the Senate final Thursday.

Dehmani voiced opposition to the School Senate’s breach of precedent and sidestep of the double rejection taken by the UGS. “I feel they need to retract this choice,” she mentioned, including that the Senate’s choice was “disrespectful” and “extremely flawed.”

Senator Kyle Becerra ’24 added that, by sidestepping the UGS vote, the School Senate was delegitimizing the voices of the undergraduate scholar physique and overriding its elected representatives. “They don’t respect that we now have a voice,” Becerra mentioned. “They circumvented the democratic course of. The issue is probably going staring them within the face.”

The cost of the C12 required that its proposed adjustments be accredited by the Board on Judicial Affairs (BJA), the UGS, the Graduate Pupil Council (GSC), the School Senate and Stanford President earlier than taking impact. That is mirrored by the method for approving the cost of the AIWG which says, in response to the Honor Code proposal introduced earlier than the C12 approving our bodies, that “the cost for the AIWG is to be set by the identical college entities that set the cost for the [C12].”

The School Senate’s movement bypasses the scholar vote to permit professors to proctor exams within the upcoming educational yr, though the movement could be overridden by the C12’s proposals ought to the UGS decide to re-vote on and go the C12’s proposed revisions.

The UGS has confronted opposition from a number of professors and graduate college students for its rejection of the C12’s proposed Honor Code revisions. Nonetheless, UGS parliamentarian Diego Kagurabadza ’25 mentioned that the rejection was an train of “an inherent proper of negotiating events, in the event that they don’t agree with the phrases of a contract, to exit.”

“This belief is totally damaged,” Dehmani mentioned relating to what additional engagement with the School Senate would possibly appear to be.

Senator Mark Huerta ’24 mentioned that the UGS can’t immediately override the vote of the School Senate and “the College may be very more likely to enact the School Senate’s choice.” Huerta, who beforehand voted in favor of the Honor Code proposals after they have been put earlier than the UGS, mentioned what he supported was “extra knowledge [and] extra outcomes” and a “a lot bigger campus dialog about this difficulty.”

Beyene mentioned that the UGS has obtained blended suggestions on proctoring and different points of educational integrity. Beyene cited issues raised by college students that proctoring may very well be disturbing, distracting and burdensome in direction of disabled college students. Nonetheless, in response to Beyene, there have been “a whole lot of [responses] mentioning particular experiences of witnessing dishonest inside their classroom surroundings.”

The C12’s aggregation of scholar suggestions reported that “undergraduate scholar outreach on in-person proctoring yielded slightly below half against in-person proctoring throughout exams right here, and the remainder equally cut up between ‘sure’ and ‘possibly.’”

In response to the C12 proposals and suggestions packet, the AIWG research into proctoring would final 2-4 years and permit restricted cases of the apply. 

Beyene mentioned that she opposed the AIWG partly because of what she characterised as a scarcity of specificity. “The rationale which I voted no is as a result of I don’t like the concept there can’t be extra specification on what proctoring goes to appear to be within the research,” Beyene mentioned.

UGS deputy chair Ritwik Tati ’25 mentioned that his concern with proctoring “is that [it] addresses the smaller portion of [Honor Code] violations. That comes with the sacrifice of racial profiling and incapacity practices.”

Reporting on scholar suggestions, the C12 wrote that almost all student-observed Honor Code violations going down in settings aside from an examination room was simply one of many scholar arguments in opposition to its effectiveness.

“As of now, technically, anyone that witnesses an Honor Code violation and [does] not report it may very well be charged with an Honor Code violation,” C12 undergraduate member Xavier Milan ’26 mentioned in reference to the sorts of conditions that he says the revised Honor Code would do a greater job of avoiding. Milan mentioned that the proposals handed the Committee by a “broad consensus,” whereas characterizing the School Senate’s vote as an “overstep.”

Certifying the 2023 UGS election outcomes

The UGS unanimously voted to certify the 2023 UGS election outcomes following the conclusion of the case of Election Commissioner v. Chen, during which UGS Senator-Elect Ivy Chen ’26 confronted prices of violating ASSU marketing campaign finance guidelines. The ASSU Constitutional Council issued a joint decision on the case Monday night, during which a settlement was reached between Chen and ASSU Election Commissioner Whit Froelich J.D. ’24, who dropped his preliminary criticism.

Chen, who obtained probably the most votes of any UGS candidate within the election, will take workplace and should pay again all of the marketing campaign reimbursements ($100) issued to her by the ASSU. The case, which was ongoing on the time of the earlier UGS assembly, was why the outcomes for the twenty fifth UGS had not already been licensed.

Constitutional Council Chair Sherwin Lai ’24 wrote an opinion separate from the joint decision of the Council during which he referred to the settled case as “yet one more reflection of the staggering and relentless disregard of longstanding precedents of the Constitutional Council which have been reaffirmed a number of occasions.”

The Council has heard two circumstances on marketing campaign finance guidelines earlier than — as soon as in 2000 and once more in 2003 — and in each cases the principles have been caught down. Lai wrote that he voted in favor of dismissing the case earlier than the Council because of not wanting “to drive the events to argue a case that neither aspect seeks to proceed.”

Granting Discretion over Marketing campaign Spending Audits

The UGS tabled a revised invoice — authored by Beyene and sponsored by Froehlich, Chen and Thompson — to provide the ASSU Elections Fee discretion over circumstances of purported marketing campaign finance rule violations. Underneath the invoice, the ASSU Monetary Supervisor could be tasked with auditing these working for ASSU elected workplaces. The invoice then forwards proof of purported irregularities from the Monetary Supervisor to the Fee along with the ASSU President and people chairing the UGS and GSC.

Dehmani expressed issues in regards to the very involvement of the legislative our bodies.

“I really feel like that messes slightly bit with separation of powers,” she mentioned, expressing a desire to defer to the Constitutional Council questions on conflicts of curiosity.

Beyene mentioned that involving the legislative our bodies of the ASSU was meant within the spirit of collaboration.

Underneath the invoice, the Fee has discretion over presenting proof to the Council on purported marketing campaign finance irregularities. Candidates wishing to contest sanctions levied in opposition to them by the Fee can enchantment to the Council. The Fee doesn’t need to current proof to the Council if purported violations might be both “simply remedied” or “not impacting the election outcomes, with this choice being agreed upon by way of a 2/third vote of each legislative our bodies.”

Involved in regards to the discretion given to the Fee, Dehmani mentioned she wished a requirement that the Fee make candidates going through sanctions conscious of these sanctions to allow them to contest them if desired.

Abolishing marketing campaign spending limits

Additionally tabled, the UGS mentioned a invoice authored by Senator Donya Sarrafian ‘23 that removes the entire ASSU’s limits on marketing campaign spending and donations. The invoice cites the 1999 Constitutional Council case — Case 5 — that declared required limits on marketing campaign spending to be unconstitutional and a “clear abridgment of free speech.”

The ASSU Structure at the moment imposes fastened limits on the mixed spending and donations of Government, Class President and UGS/GSC campaigns at $500, $100 and $100 respectively.

Sarrafian mentioned {that a} core focus of the invoice is to foster a extra equitable ASSU marketing campaign system.

“A number of it’s primarily based on sustaining fairness between candidates,” Sarrafian mentioned. The ASSU limits on marketing campaign funds, as they at the moment stand, “give a disproportionate benefit to native college students who can use their mother and father’ workplaces to print issues [or] who can go house to print issues.”

“College students who might need a printer of their room [and] college students who have already got a big social media presence may not must promote as a lot,” she mentioned.

Thompson, a former member of the UGS himself, mentioned that one other drawback was weighing the potential inequities of finance limits with the inequities that might outcome from having no limits in any respect.

“I’m fighting weighing the inequities clause with the potential of individuals pumping some huge cash into [elections] which others don’t have,” Thompson mentioned. “Maybe the explanation we aren’t seeing exorbitant spending is as a result of present constraints don’t permit for that.”

Clarifications to the Annual Grant course of

Tabled from its Apr. 25 assembly, the UGS handed a invoice which revises points of the method by which Annual Grants are accredited. The invoice codifies and clarifies quite a few regular, present UGS Appropriations Committee practices reminiscent of a Voluntary Service Group (VSO) solely with the ability to submit one Annual Grant per educational yr.

The invoice additionally explicitly states that “the Appropriations Committee should unanimously approve all requests from VSOs to switch an Annual Grant.” Modification may additionally be accredited by a two-thirds vote of the UGS.

“Because the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I feel this [bill] will make clear issues so much for teams going ahead,” Huerta mentioned in sponsoring the invoice with its creator Kagurabadza.

Appointment to the Neighborhood Board of Public Security

Additionally tabled from its Apr. 25 assembly, the UGS voted to substantiate Dehmani’s nomination to the Neighborhood Board of Public Security (CBPS), the College committee tasked with “reimagining public security on the Stanford campus.” The Board additionally prepares an annual report that’s submitted to the Stanford President, Vice President and Common Counsel and the Chief of Police.

Dehmani introduced consideration to problems with campus surveillance and policing in her assertion, writing that she needs to “advocate for measures that truly help college students, not proceed to profile and discriminate in opposition to them.”

“I’ll be certain that fairness is on the coronary heart of those selections, and that scholar issues over the racist and ableist historical past of policing and surveillance on this campus are listened to,” Dehmani wrote.

Healthcare Advocacy Committee

The UGS tabled a decision to create a Healthcare Advocacy Committee to deal with numerous points associated to healthcare on campus. Senator Priyanka Shrestha ’24 met with fourth-year aeronautics and astronautics Ph.D. and GSC co-chair Jason Anderson to include GSC suggestions to make clear particulars on the invoice and mentioned there’s nonetheless knowledge to be built-in into the invoice. Additional conferences with the GSC are being deliberate.